Funny, at the moment QWEST is advertising on /. and speedtest.net.

I should say QWEST had a couple of good points. A little faster upload speeds than cable and over a 8 years run I would guess the connection was not down 48 hours (I ran a server for a couple of businesses most of the time). And QWEST let me use a ISP of my choosing with a static IP. But when I wanted to cut back cost a little QWEST was a bitch. $60 a month for 2.66 mbps naked DSL is just too much.

Except it is not 3 mbps, it is 2.66. QWEST says "Well, we mean up to 3 mbps." But it is never up to 3 mbps. It is always at 2.66. But that is OK with QWEST because they call it good if it is within 80% of 3 mbps.

Also I learned that the reason I am not seeing 3 mbps is because of "overhead".

I hated to do it but I switched to cable. I am paying for 5 and it is always above 5.

They didn't change thier codec, they are still using MPEG2. Here is the thing with MPEG, its a decode standard, not an encode standard. So, if you come up with some new novel way of encoding, as long as the format of the output stays the same, and the decoder undersands it, its not a problem.

To this end, MPEG2 (and 4) encoders have over the years become more efficient. What does efficent mean? Well with encoding you have 3 variables, output quality, bit rate, and processing power. Pick 2, or really pick 1. If you want a better bit rate, reduce qaulity, or increase processing power, or do both. But there are limits.

Now taking HD which in the US was originally designed to be 19.8 Mbs down to 9.7 is possible, but at the limits of MPEG2 itself, and there will be a massive hit to quality.

There is another trick called MPEG statistical multiplexing, but that is a lesson for another day.

No, they'll use the data to *dishonestly* support their points. In other words, to make it look as though there's a problem where there isn't. Very easy to do, if you're so inclined and aren't above a little dishonesty of your own. You don't even need dishonesty actually, incompetence combined with an ignorance of your incompetence and a desire to find a particular result will do nicely. Just trawl through until you find something that looks vaguely suspicious. Don't bother to investigate further, just take it and shout "Explain that!". Repeat. In other words, just keep slinging shit at the wall until something sticks. It's an effective propaganda tool, but science it ain't.

The fact is that you don't *need* the raw data to do legitimate criticism. If something is wrong with their method, criticise it based on how it's been described in the literature (and it is). Other climate scientists at different institutions felt perfectly capable of assessing the work without the raw data, why do these "sceptics" require it?

If you really want to "know the truth" rather than just try and push a point of view, there's nothing stopping you reading the published material, of which there is plenty. No need for any club membership.